Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/226

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Iffco Tokio General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Chandi

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:226 dated 07.10.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 11.07.2023.

 

Karamjit Singh Mangat son of Gurbaksh Singh, R/o.Village Ramgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana.            

..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Ltd., Iffco Tokio Building, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2 B & C, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

.….Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate. 

For OP                           :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant being owner of car Hyundai I-20 bearing registration No.PB-10CS-5168 got insured the car from the opposite party vide insurance cover No.1-17N4G4NP by paying the entire premium. According to the complainant, on 21.09.019 he was going from Ramgarh to Ludhiana on the said car and when he reached near Village Jhabewal, the car met with an accident while preventing a stray animal on the road and it struck with pole due to which front side of the car was totally damaged. The complainant lodged a DDR with the concerned police station and also informed the opposite party about the accident and then brought the damaged car to workshop at Ludhiana. The complainant contacted opposite party on which its representative asked the complainant to get repair the damaged car and assured to pay repairing charges  and further advised the complainant to hand over the documents upon which the complainant handed over the documents as per demand of the opposite party. The complainant further stated that he got his vehicle repaired from workshop vide bill No.140 dated 07.12.2019 amounting to Rs.31,000/- and vide bill No.8677 dated 11.10.2019 of Rs.4400/-. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay the repairing charged but it did not adhere his genuine oral as well as written request and refused to pay the same. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 07.01.2020 through Sh. Harjot Singh Bains, Advocate but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.35,400/- and Rs.20,000/- as compensation  besides litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement. Under the heading of factual submission, the opposite parties alleged that the vehicle Hyundai I20 bearing registration No.PB-10CS-5168 was insured for a period of 08.09.2019 to 07.09.2020 vide policy No.MA043798  for private vehicle as detailed in the Policy Schedule and all the conditions were understood by the complainant before taking the policy. The benefits under the policy are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability of the opposite party is limited to the insured perils occurring within the policy period subject to conditions and exceptions as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party further alleged that they registered the claim vide claim No.1-183E0E4A upon receipt of the claim from the complainant for damages to the vehicle on 21.09.2019 and deputed Company employed in-house surveyor Mr. Harpreet Singh to survey and assess the loss  to the vehicle who collected the documents from the complainant, got filled the claim form, inspected the vehicle and clicked photographs and submitted his report.  The opposite parties initially sent a request letter dated 17.10.2019 followed by reminder letter dated 24.10.2019 and final letter dated 05.11.2019 to the complainant to provide certified copy of FIR and copy of charge sheet

for processing the claim but the complainant failed to provide the documents and as such, the claim was closed due to non-compliance of documents and intimation was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 24.01.2020. According to the opposite parties, the claim of the complainant has been rightly closed after thorough application of mind and in terms of the coverage under the policy.

                   In the preliminary objections, the opposite parties assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability, lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and deficiency in service etc. The complaint is barred under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. The terms of the contract of insurance have to be strictly construed as per which the present claim of the complainant deserves dismissal being outside the scope of terms of the policy.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the factual submission and preliminary objections and has denied that there is any deficiency of service. The opposite party further alleged that the insurance company has provided full services and has decided the claim in terms of the insurance terms and conditions. The complainant is not entitled to any amount from the insurance company and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of  legal notice dated 03.01.2020, Ex. C2 is the postal receipt, Ex. C3 is the copy of DDR No.14 dated 21.09.2019, Ex. C4 is the coy of motor claim form, Ex. C5  is the copy of driving licence of the complainant, Ex. C6 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sameer Gupta, Authorized Signatory of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of policy schedule, Ex. R2 is the copy of survey report, Ex. R3 to Ex. R6 are the copies of letters dated 17.10.2019, 24.10.2019, 05.11.2019 and 24.01.2020 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply, affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Undisputably, a vehicle make Hyundai I-20 bearing registration No.PB-10CS-5168 owned by the complainant met with an accident on 21.09.2019  near Village Jhabewal. Prompt intimation to the police lead to the registration of DDR No. No.14 dated 21.09.2019 at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana (Ex. C3). The claim was also lodged and the opposite parties deputed in-house surveyor Mr. Harpreet Singh to assess the loss. Due to non-submission of certain documents i.e. certified copy of FIR and copy of charge sheet, vide letter dated 25.01.2020 Ex. R6 the claim file was closed.      It has been mentioned in the letters Ex. R3 to Ex. R6 that in case of non-supply of the documents, the claim file will be closed as ‘No claim’. A close examination of these letters reveals that these letters were issued after the receipt of the claim supported by certain documents and only the pending documents were requisitioned through these letters. Moreover, non-submission of the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.

7.                In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

In this case, the police did not register any FIR but, however, a DDR No. No.14 dated 21.09.2019 Ex. C3 was lodged with Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana and as per the complainant the copy of DDR has already been supplied to the opposite parties. However, it was the duty of the opposite parties to assess the loss even when the documents were submitted to them. Sh. Harpreet Singh Surveyor vide his survey report Ex. R3 has given his report but has not assessed any loss rather made a deduction of Rs.1000/- under the column excess. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement nor raised any objection to the survey report Ex. R3. The complainant has staked his claim to the tune of Rs.35,400/-. So in the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to submit copy of DDR with the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. along with composite compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit copy of DDR with the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite parties shall further pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainants compositely assessed as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Karamjit Singh Vs M/s. Iffco Tokio GIC                        CC/20/226

Present:       Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit copy of DDR with the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant.. The opposite parties shall further pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainants compositely assessed as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.